In Iloff v. LaPaille (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 404, the Court of Appeal held that for purposes of the statute of limitations in a Berman proceeding, the limitations period is tolled upon the filing of the initial claim form, rather than when a formal complaint is later issued. Furthermore, the court held that Lab. Code § 558.1 does not provide trial courts with the discretion to withhold personal liability on owners or managing agents for wage violations. Instead, if the statutory criteria are met, the court must impose this liability, as the discretion to pursue the claim belongs solely to the employee. The court also held that the value of lodging provided as compensation must be included in the "daily rate of pay" when calculating waiting time penalties under § 203.

This decision expands the scope of personal financial risk for corporate officers in wage disputes and ensures that employees receiving non-monetary compensation, such as housing, receive higher penalty awards that reflect the true value of their total pay.

In Dobarro v. Kim (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 158, the Court of Appeal held that the tolling provisions for electronic filing failures (Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.6) do not apply to the strict jurisdictional deadline for appealing a Labor Commissioner award (Labor Code § 98.2). Affirming the dismissal of an appeal filed one day late after a clerk rejected a timely attempted e-filing, the court relied on Pressler v. Donald L. Bren Co. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 831 to maintain that the deadline is mandatory and cannot be extended for mistake or neglect.

This decision reinforces the unforgiving nature of § 98.2 appeals, warning counsel that technical glitches or clerk rejections offer no relief from this specific jurisdictional bar.

In Iloff v. LaPaille (2025) 18 Cal. 5th 551, the California Supreme Court unanimously held that an employer's mere ignorance of the law is not a "good faith" defense to liquidated damages for minimum wage violations. Modeling the defense on its FLSA counterpart, the Court ruled the employer must show they made an "attempt to determine what the law required" (e.g., investigating compliance). The Court also held that a de novo Berman appeal (Lab. Code § 98.2) allows trial courts discretion to hear new claims not raised before the Labor Commissioner, such as a Paid Sick Leave claim.

This decision requires employers to prove affirmative steps toward compliance to avoid liquidated damages and confirms the broad, de novo scope of Berman appeals, preventing them from being limited only to claims vetted by the Commissioner.

In Lowry v. Port San Luis Harbor Dist. (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 56, the Court of Appeal held that an employer's denial of a disability retirement application is not an "adverse employment action" actionable under FEHA. The court also affirmed summary judgment on the alternative ground that the plaintiff was not a "qualified individual" under FEHA because he concededly could not perform his essential job duties.

This decision reinforces that the exclusive remedy to challenge a retirement denial is the administrative writ process, not a FEHA discrimination lawsuit.

In Villalva v. Bombardier Mass Transit Corp. (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 211, the Court of Appeal held that a wage and hour plaintiff who loses their claim at a Berman hearing but subsequently prevails in a trial de novo is entitled to attorney's fees and costs under Labor Code §§ 218.5, 226, and 119. It ruled that the trial de novo is an independent "action," not merely an appeal governed by the fee-shifting limits of § 98.2 (c).

This decision confirms that employees do not forfeit their statutory right to attorney's fees by first pursuing, and even losing, an informal Berman hearing.

In Quesada v. County of Los Angeles (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 880, the Court of Appeal held that the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework does not apply to non-discrimination claims, such as a public employee's writ of mandate proceeding alleging a promotion was denied based on a time-barred investigation. The court affirmed the denial of the writ, rejecting the plaintiff's argument that evidentiary difficulties (like confidentiality agreements) justified borrowing the framework.

This decision confirms that the McDonnell Douglas test is limited to discrimination cases and cannot be used by plaintiffs in other employment disputes to ease their burden of proof.

In Bedard v. City of Los Angeles (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 442, the Court of Appeal affirmed the termination of a police officer for refusing to comply with a city's COVID-19 vaccination ordinance, holding that a violation of Skelly rights does not automatically require reinstatement when the underlying conduct justifies the termination.

The decision confirms that the remedy for a pre-termination due process (Skelly) violation is typically back pay only for the period of the delay, not reversal of the termination itself. This reinforces a clear distinction between procedural defects and the substantive validity of public employee discipline.

In Ramirez v. City of Indio (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 939, the Court of Appeal affirmed the termination of a public employee despite a favorable arbitral recommendation, holding that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) granted the city manager final, non-deferential authority over the termination decision.

This decision reinforces that the explicit terms of an MOU control the disciplinary process for public employees, even when they conflict with an arbitrator's findings.

In Lusardi Construction Co v. Dept of Industrial Relations (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 1329, the Court of Appeal held that under former Labor Code § 1777.7(d), a prime contractor's actual knowledge of its subcontractor's apprentice violations (former § 1777.5) was sufficient by itself to establish joint and several liability for penalties. The court affirmed the denial of the prime's writ petition, finding substantial evidence supported the administrative finding of knowledge and rejecting the argument that knowledge alone was an insufficient basis for liability.

This decision confirms that prime contractors could be held liable for known subcontractor violations under the former public works statutory scheme.

In LaMarr v. The Regents of the University of California (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 671, the Court of Appeal held that an employee is not entitled to a Skelly hearing before voluntarily accepting a demotion to avoid potential (but not yet finalized) disciplinary action. The plaintiff chose a lower-paying position rather than risk termination (which would have triggered Skelly rights).

The court, citing Coleman v. Department of Personnel Administration (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1102, held that due process is not required where an employee "has voluntarily surrendered the property interest" and that requiring a pre-choice hearing would improperly expand Skelly to apply merely when an employer considers an adverse action.